We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33 (2018), No. 4     31. July 2018
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33 (2018), No. 4  (31.07.2018)

Online Article, Page e89-e105, doi:10.11607/jomi.5940, PubMed:30024992


Online Article: Prevalence of Peri-implant Disease According to Periodontal Probing Depth and Bleeding on Probing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Muñoz Giraldo, Viviana / Duque, Andres / Giraldo Aristizabal, Astrid / Manrique Hernández, Ruben Darío
Purpose: To compare changes in the prevalence of peri-implantitis when the unit of analysis is the subject and when the unit of analysis is the implant, by means of meta-analysis with subgroup and sensitivity analyses, according to the case definition and cutoffs. Periodontal probing depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were considered the primary variables.
Materials and Methods: Electronic and manual searches of observational studies of implants with loading of more than 6 months were conducted. The quality of the studies was evaluated, and finally, a description (qualitative analysis) and a meta-analysis (quantitative analysis) of the available studies were performed.
Results: Fifty-five studies were included in this systematic review, 32 of which met the criteria for evaluation of disease based on PPD and BOP. A total of 2,734 subjects and 7,849 implants were evaluated. The prevalence of peri-implantitis, defined by PPD and BOP, was 17% when the unit of analysis was the subject, and 11% when it was the implant. If the clinical criterion was PPD ≥ 4 mm, the prevalence by subject was 34% and by implant 11%. If PPD was ≥ 5 mm, the prevalence by subject was 12% and by implant 10%. Finally, if the clinical criterion was PPD ≥ 6 mm, the prevalence by subject was 18% and by implant 10%.
Conclusion: The prevalence of peri-implantitis is influenced by the criteria used for the case definition, and the true prevalence may currently be incorrectly estimated.

Keywords: dental implants, meta-analysis, peri-implantitis, prevalence, systematic review